Without this site, I honestly would have no idea what this title is about because someone has/had already a priori deemed it not even worthy of reviewing based on what? A personal moral code/standard? That's as much a soapbox as anything else.

Oh oh... I know a site where you can look up anything you want. Let me share it with you: www.google.com. I'm pretty sure it's how that youtube video was found... at least I hope it was.

Quote from: rittchard on January 02, 2013, 09:51:41 PM

Maybe there was an interesting game somewhere in there or not, but a review would have given me an actual impression from someone I trusted. Just as there are great games I would never have heard of it weren't for this site, a review of a crappy game could steer me clear from it (or toward it) as well.

As far as movie "porn" is concerned, sure bring on the reviews - one man's porn is another man's action adventure lol. Again, why is a violent/torture movie like Saw 7 considered "legitimate" whereas Tittyfuck 69 is not?

Here's the thing though... the general audience for this site (I assume) has no interest in this game. So why would the proprietors of this site waste resources to tell you that a presumably shitty game that has sex is, in fact, a shitty game that has sex. The audience for that game knows what they are getting. The review doesn't matter. 99% of the viewers of this site won't even click on that review. It's nearly worthless.

Now if GT was Ron's Review Site of Porn Games, then by all means review it.

Quote

As far as movie "porn" is concerned, sure bring on the reviews - one man's porn is another man's action adventure lol. Again, why is a violent/torture movie like Saw 7 considered "legitimate" whereas Tittyfuck 69 is not?

Because one has a bigger mainstream audience than the other, I guess. Don't ask me, I'm more likely to watch Tittyfuck 69 than I am Saw 7, but I for sure don't need any website telling me whether either is worth my time. I'd made my mind up on that already. More importantly, this site certainly does not need to tell me whether either is worth my time.

Now I will get on my soapbox a little bit, and maybe this belongs more in the Meta forum, but I think this question even being asked speaks to a bigger issue I see with GamingTrend overall. I'm not sure this site knows what it wants to be when it grows up. What's the goal here? I don't read the main page because it does not provide me *anything* that I can't get better elsewhere. The staff, for all the hard work and effort, is really providing the same content as untold other sites on the web. There, to me, is a lack of an overall 'voice' here. Decisions like running this review or any other content should be made on whether or not they move towards the end goal. The question is, what is that goal?

Exactly the point! Without this site, I honestly would have no idea what this title is about because someone has/had already a priori deemed it not even worthy of reviewing based on what? A personal moral code/standard? That's as much a soapbox as anything else. Maybe there was an interesting game somewhere in there or not, but a review would have given me an actual impression from someone I trusted. Just as there are great games I would never have heard of it weren't for this site, a review of a crappy game could steer me clear from it (or toward it) as well.

The flip side is true. As now he would be reviewing it SOLELY because it is a porn game. That's the only hook it has going for it.

There are great games that you've never heard of that Ron and Co should be searching out to review and bring to our attention...this isn't one of them. But if you're curious, go buy it.

Entertainment and sexual arousal for masturbatory purposes are two different things.

GT doesn't have the "room behind the bead curtain" ... reviewing a game which has no other purpose besides pornographic interest isn't worth the game time, or the writeup.

It would be worth a "quick look in a dark corner" editorial article, and as long as the publisher is OK with that, I think it would be a fantastic piece of work.

Consider the hullabaloo that "Hot Coffee" brought to the table, and how western "Puritan" values made this out to be GTA corrupting children (hint: M isn't M for Mom's new babysitter) - but that minigame was no better or worse than one that has you flying exploding RC vehicles - it's not part of the core gameplay, but could be "Value added".

This current game could go to show how pathetic the industry has come sofar, with classic adventure games like LSL DROVE the industry at one point. Titillation and arousal are hot products ( AKA sex sells ) - but can a video game really deliver both entertainment, enjoyment, and gameplay - or is the modern AO game a glorified nudie pen?

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Entertainment and sexual arousal for masturbatory purposes are two different things.

GT doesn't have the "room behind the bead curtain" ... reviewing a game which has no other purpose besides pornographic interest isn't worth the game time, or the writeup.

It would be worth a "quick look in a dark corner" editorial article, and as long as the publisher is OK with that, I think it would be a fantastic piece of work.

Consider the hullabaloo that "Hot Coffee" brought to the table, and how western "Puritan" values made this out to be GTA corrupting children (hint: M isn't M for Mom's new babysitter) - but that minigame was no better or worse than one that has you flying exploding RC vehicles - it's not part of the core gameplay, but could be "Value added".

This current game could go to show how pathetic the industry has come sofar, with classic adventure games like LSL DROVE the industry at one point. Titillation and arousal are hot products ( AKA sex sells ) - but can a video game really deliver both entertainment, enjoyment, and gameplay - or is the modern AO game a glorified nudie pen?

I've written some fan fiction that involves Metallicorphan, Ceekay, 4 cans of 40 weight engine oil and a secluded cabin in the woods. Would it be acceptable to submit it for review to the site? Or should I just continue posting excerpts on my website "Impromptulove.com" and rely on audience critiques?

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I've written some fan fiction that involves Metallicorphan, Ceekay, 4 cans of 40 weight engine oil and a secluded cabin in the woods. Would it be acceptable to submit it for review to the site? Or should I just continue posting excerpts on my website "Impromptulove.com" and rely on audience critiques?

40 Weights of STP?

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

I've written some fan fiction that involves Metallicorphan, Ceekay, 4 cans of 40 weight engine oil and a secluded cabin in the woods. Would it be acceptable to submit it for review to the site? Or should I just continue posting excerpts on my website "Impromptulove.com" and rely on audience critiques?

40 Weights of STP?

You think you'll need a higher viscosity for the evening?

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I should clarify my earlier comment, without this site I wouldn't have even known this game *existed* so there's no way I could search for it. If it were reviewed (if even only to say that after spending an hour with it there was no redeeming value), I would know I should likely avoid it.

What interests me about this whole topic is how quickly it can slide into censorship. What if the editors chose to not review, say, Call of Duty, because it was deemed too bloody or violent or had questionable moral value? I suspect there would be a very different reaction. You may say that's a horrible example, but I could easily argue that in the opening hour I played the game, I killed and maimed a crap ton of people with a variety of different weapons. Some I continued to shoot and maim after they were "dead" just for the fun of it and to see what body parts would fly where and how much blood and guts I could generate. I know there are plenty of people who would consider this sort of thing morally "wrong."

Purge makes the statement "Entertainment and sexual arousal for masturbatory purposes are two different things" sound like it is a rule of law, when in fact it's just his personal feeling about entertainment. I'm sure for some people it's one and the same, or at least could potentially be. Just like for some people it's fun (or even arousing) to watch a movie or play a game about a family of cannibals that skins peoples' faces off. Even the definition of what is a "game" is up for grabs these days. Take the "game" Heroes Call and the others in that series, for instance, it's really just a book with multiple paths. There have been "games" in the past which were mostly just animations strung together through some simple clicks or choices; I don't know for certain that reaplcing those animations with sex/"porn" rather than something else automatically makes it "bad."

So the question is where do you draw the line? And who gets to draw the line? Obviously for a private site like this the owners/reviewers get to decide based on whatver criteria they deem acceptable. Regardless, I'd still appreciate hearing the opinion of a reviewer here as often as possible (and contrary to some I do read the front page all the time, and this is pretty much the only gaming site I read regularly) about something I might come across, even if it were just a statement that he personally found something morally objectionable. At least it gives me a frame of reference and a unique point of view to consider.

Purge makes the statement "Entertainment and sexual arousal for masturbatory purposes are two different things" sound like it is a rule of law, when in fact it's just his personal feeling about entertainment. I'm sure for some people it's one and the same, or at least could potentially be.

See Pee Wee Herman circa 1991 for an example of the latter cross section.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

What interests me about this whole topic is how quickly it can slide into censorship.

Not reviewing something is not censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from saying something. It is different from not guaranteeing someone access to a venue. This is Ron's (or whatever corporate entity he represents) site. The rules and restrictions he applied to his usage of editorial time and his advertising policies are his own to determine. Ruling something out is not censorship. Those denied have no guarantee of others providing them a venue. They're free to take out ads in other media, print flyers, put up their own websites, and shout it from their office windows how great their game is. Other actors in media have no requirement to help them disseminate their message, whether they pay for the privilege or not.

What interests me about this whole topic is how quickly it can slide into censorship.

Not reviewing something is not censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from saying something. It is different from not guaranteeing someone access to a venue. This is Ron's (or whatever corporate entity he represents) site. The rules and restrictions he applied to his usage of editorial time and his advertising policies are his own to determine. Ruling something out is not censorship. Those denied have no guarantee of others providing them a venue. They're free to take out ads in other media, print flyers, put up their own websites, and shout it from their office windows how great their game is. Other actors in media have no requirement to help them disseminate their message, whether they pay for the privilege or not.

Exactly. The editorship of this staff needs to decide what items to review based primarily on what they think their readership wants to read. They are not obligated to review every "game" under the sun... there's no time for that. If Ron and crew decide their audience would not appreciate a Call of Duty game review, then they shouldn't review it. They'd probably be wrong, but you tailor your product (content) to your market (audience).

There are plenty of us indies out there, you need not look to the fringes to find us. With regards to this game I would say, play it, if it is awesome, if its groundbreaking and something special, then review it, if not, why bother.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 08:17:53 PM by tcweidner »

Logged

Project Reindeer Games- Exclusive Family Friendly PC Games to Give, Play, and Share for Free.

There's a lot of niche games out there that we never hear about, nor don't we necessarily want to hear about them here. There's tons of religious games for example, mostly crap. Nobody is reviewing them because we already know they are crap, there's a very limited audience for them, and they are controversial by nature. The same goes for porn. You may argue all you want that porn is entertainment, and I'm sure there's a limited subset of porn viewers who look at their porn in that way, but for most other people it's either: A) a tool for arousal, or B) something to be shunned.

That's not even mentioning the other results we'd get from including porn game reviews on GT. Internet filters would tag GT as a site featuring pornographic content (of a mild nature), which would increase its chances of being blocked at work. For those who don't have to go through filters at work, there's still the fact that most workplaces don't want their workers looking at porn on the net, and the presence of such content, even if everything is censored and any images are "tasteful", could lead to decent people getting into trouble with their employee.

All this for something none of us have asked for and probably never even thought about. Don't make this into a debate over morals and censorship. It's a debate about the focus of a site that has been around for years. Why should it suddenly change its focus to also feature porn reviews simply because a company that makes these games asked?

As for making a story out of the whole thing, I'd rather that didn't happen. Even this thread has quickly delved into controversy, so imagine what an official article would do. It's better to leave all of this alone and let sites dedicated to porn or erotica (and there's more than enough of those around) take care of it. They aren't reviewing regular games either, for the most part. That's not what their readership comes there for, and vice-versa.

Ritt does have a point though - look at comic books, for instance. We all love graphic novels (or their spinoff movies), but they were shunned - not "censored" by law, but post-world-war 1, comic books were relegated to children and no retail stores would carry any adult-content - they were shunned if they did. Contrast that to Japan the animation was embraced culturally, across the spectrum. Does that mean that we'll all end up watching tentacle porn? I doubt it - cephlorotica isn't contagious (or so it seems).

I'm personally not interested in reviewing "E for Ejaculate" games - but I wouldn't mind if some of our M for Mature would push some boundaries into the AO camp because of their fearlessness in being able to portray sex in an adult manner, rather than a 12yr old giggle-giggle-I-saw-her-nipple kind of way.

If I wanted that, I'd be watching Twilight. I'm not CeeKay - I'm not that angsty.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2013, 08:39:25 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

I've written some fan fiction that involves Metallicorphan, Ceekay, 4 cans of 40 weight engine oil and a secluded cabin in the woods. Would it be acceptable to submit it for review to the site? Or should I just continue posting excerpts on my website "Impromptulove.com" and rely on audience critiques?

40 Weights of STP?

You think you'll need a higher viscosity for the evening?

no, but some spark plugs would be nice.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

Ritt does have a point though - look at comic books, for instance. We all love graphic novels (or their spinoff movies), but they were shunned - not "censored" by law, but post-world-war 1, comic books were relegated to children and no retail stores would carry any adult-content - they were shunned if they did. Contrast that to Japan the animation was embraced culturally, across the spectrum. Does that mean that we'll all end up watching tentacle porn? I doubt it - cephlorotica isn't contagious (or so it seems).

Why is censorship being brought up again? This has nothing to do with that.

Ritt does have a point though - look at comic books, for instance. We all love graphic novels (or their spinoff movies), but they were shunned - not "censored" by law, but post-world-war 1, comic books were relegated to children and no retail stores would carry any adult-content - they were shunned if they did. Contrast that to Japan the animation was embraced culturally, across the spectrum. Does that mean that we'll all end up watching tentacle porn? I doubt it - cephlorotica isn't contagious (or so it seems).

Why is censorship being brought up again? This has nothing to do with that.

Then you didn't understand my post. While the word censorship (aka a governance forcing a product to be restricted) having a social stigma functioning in the same manner is no less different. If you see a vagina or a penis in a game, it becomes AO pretty much instantly. So censorship? We *are* discussing game ratings as part of this thread. Whether it be stigma, collusion, or a ratings council, games are being pigeon-holed based on the rating on the box, and when a game gets AO, it's assumed to be a mindless tribute to masturbation.

IIRC, the game Soldier of Fortune had ~10 chunks of skull so when you landed a headshot, it was as gruesome as possible - that was more than 12 years ago. First time I was surprised by an enemy around a corner I reacted by shooting him pointblank in the face with a shotgun. I immediately paused, and then shut down the game and walked away from it. Two days later I fired it up and I went back to push through it with the option of violence turned down - and I never took another headshot - it had grossed me out that much. It was rated M.

GT being blocked because we carry official reviews of "adult" titles shouldn't be a concern - frankly GT is already on blocked lists because it's a published "video game website" and most workplaces that engage in content control already block it (mine does). It being listed as a "porn" site is a misnomer - and frankly with "Adult only" content - such as Mature games - it should already be held as such.

If Ron stated "Here, Justin. This game was being offered for review. See if it's worth our time to publish it." I wouldn't refuse - there's no reason this, or any other game available for sale couldn't be posted.

Fact of the matter is, we're all volunteer, and besides the occasional free game (which we then have to place time limits on, look at critically, and then produce content worth publishing), we've been told to look at games which are interesting to us when we're on our own gaming dollar. Sometimes Barbie Horse Adventures 12 gets sent, and oh well, it's time to play with the ponies, but for the most part, there is so much compelling content out there that this isn't the norm.

So Ron was reaching out to find out if there were people interested in the genre - he's a benevolent dictator . He's asking the core audience whether this has merit, and while a lot of people have spoken out, I think the issue here isn't "Will GT review AO games that have explicit sex" but whether a game who's "gameplay" lasts as long as the clothes in a porn scene is something people want to find out about. But truthfully, the forums doesn't represent the main body of readership - there are a lot of us in the back of GT that have no reasonable connection to the front of the site.

That being said - this game, in particular, doesn't seem worth the hours and hours for gameplay analysis. An article contrasting a modern game to the ancient, and widely enjoyed, Leisure Suit Larry of the late eighties was both clever, and sexually enticing in the same way we enjoyed watching movies like Porky's. It was completely and totally based on sex, but not really masturbatory. A contrast to that would be a game like Girls Panic, a puzzle game that reveals nude pics behind it. Nothing clever, nothing compelling, just plain old sex.

Spoiler for "Hollah out to Astroboy":

If you read closely or use the CTRL-F button, you'll find at least one instance of anal and tit in my message.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 03:00:07 AM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

As for the violence vs sex thing, thats a specific US trait. You guys really don't like sex, and really love violence as a nation.I assume that as a mainstream site, you want to reach out and grab the mainstream crowd? At least, that's what you have been aiming at so far.

That means, that porn games like the one mentioned isn't interesting to you. If you are looking for a healthy debate instead though, I'd much rather you do something that is of interest to every gamer out there, and which frankly is something that is necessary to have a debate about once in a while, take up violence in videogames. RPS and several other game sites have been doing so lately, since its a debate that is also taking place in various government agencies right now, and is rearing its ugly head more and more.While its a sore subject since its what the enemies of our hobby usually do, I also tend to think its something that is vital to discuss.

I'd frankly welcome something like that on GT, since the frontpage is void of any kind of personality right now, as I've stated somewhere else in a thread dealing with the site as well.

My personal feeling on it is "It's a product. I review products. Somebody out there wants to know whether or not this game is worth their cash" - it's more the community reaction I'm worried about. The review itself will fall off the front page in a day or two and fall to obscurity with a news push or two. I just don't want somebody tearing me a new ass because their kid read it or something.

This is where the thread began. As noted, some/many in the forums don't use the main site as a place for information and reviews. For some of us, though, it's the primary site we read for reviews, and then some times we may jump into the links provided by people here. So maybe "censorship" is not the right word choice as it gets peoples' panties all bunched up, but the fact is that the review or even a mention of the game on the front page was eliminated because of concern that the community would not approve. And so that's why I got into the annoying double standard I see of "it's OK for me or my kid to see insane amounts of violence, but heaven forbid we see some private parts doing sexy stuff."

I don't think Ron and the editors need to review every game that exists, but this one fell into his lap (no pun intended) and seemed like it warranted at least a paragraph to describe it and perhaps avoid at all costs if you are afraid of seeing porn in your games (which since I never saw the video link I am presuming based on what people have said).

As for the violence vs sex thing, thats a specific US trait. You guys really don't like sex, and really love violence as a nation.

Seriously. Watching people get stabbed, shot, or beaten is routine on network tv, but you won't find nudity. When it has been done (NYPD Blue comes to mind...a show that's been off the air nearly a decade) it was minimal and considered scandalous.

Now I will get on my soapbox a little bit, and maybe this belongs more in the Meta forum, but I think this question even being asked speaks to a bigger issue I see with GamingTrend overall. I'm not sure this site knows what it wants to be when it grows up. What's the goal here? I don't read the main page because it does not provide me *anything* that I can't get better elsewhere. The staff, for all the hard work and effort, is really providing the same content as untold other sites on the web. There, to me, is a lack of an overall 'voice' here. Decisions like running this review or any other content should be made on whether or not they move towards the end goal. The question is, what is that goal?

I think this is what you should be focusing on. I knew what the answer was for Gone Gold, but I'm not sure about Gaming Trend.

“I think it's part of the natural growing-up of the medium, and of people's view of video games. The whole ‘video games are for children’ thing, most gamers don’t agree with that. They know what age they are and they know what they want. But the games publishers are always worrying about that perception. They don't want to do stuff that will upset anyone. I just think it'll take a few brave games to break that perception, and then it will become normal.”

Which also goes back to my question, how and why did it become "normal" to glorify the slaughtering of people but not the sex-ing of them? Honestly I just think it's kind of illogical and strange that a movie like Hostel can show a scene of a girl's eye getting ripped out (and fed back to her or something, I don't remember I closed my eyes lol), and be considered "OK" for general consumption, but heaven forbid we see a PENIS going into a girl, or even more ungodly, an ERECT PENIS . Or how ridiculous it was a few years ago that the entire country went into an uproar when Janet Jackson' pretty little titty showed up on TV. I mean seriously, I'm gay and I'm not afraid of some boobage, what is everyone freaking out about

Which also goes back to my question, how and why did it become "normal" to glorify the slaughtering of people but not the sex-ing of them? Honestly I just think it's kind of illogical and strange that a movie like Hostel can show a scene of a girl's eye getting ripped out (and fed back to her or something, I don't remember I closed my eyes lol), and be considered "OK" for general consumption, but heaven forbid we see a PENIS going into a girl, or even more ungodly, an ERECT PENIS . Or how ridiculous it was a few years ago that the entire country went into an uproar when Janet Jackson' pretty little titty showed up on TV. I mean seriously, I'm gay and I'm not afraid of some boobage, what is everyone freaking out about

We are a relatively young country founded by a violent uprising of Protestant Christians. It's been this way since the beginning. One Nation, under God. Second Amendment. All here since damn near the beginning and that wasn't too long ago. We are our past.

Or how ridiculous it was a few years ago that the entire country went into an uproar when Janet Jackson' pretty little titty showed up on TV.

How about this? I'm watching the superbowl with my 7 year old daughter and 5 year old son. Why should I have to fear seeing that garbage on primetime when nearly every other hour of tv, radio, etc is almost solely focused on sexual content in some form. And it's not a 'please think of the children' thing. There should be safe havens. A primetime globally watched football game should be one of them.

That said this whole thing is a red herring. Sex permeates nearly everything in our society. Saying it's censored or limited in any way is just BS.

If you want to see d going in, watch porn. It doesn't need to be in movies, on tv, plays or radio dramas. You can get that stuff elsewhere.

If you see someone singing and dancing on stage, they're dressed provocatively. Oh noes, a boob!

Are you expecting questions like "Dad, is that man trying to rape her?" simply because her boob popped out? Is the sight of a nipple a cause for concern that they're going to say "To hell with it, let's just have sex on stage, RIGHT NOW!"

How is nudity in any way connected to sexual intercourse as a matter of life? Your dog is naked - is it engaged with copulation 99% of the time? This is where nudity, *not sexual conduct*, needs to be parsed out.

If you're watching a gore flick, and there is killing and it's viceral and brutal on-screen, it should be rated at the same level that full on sexual intercourse is - but showing two people engaged in a sexual but non-gratuitous act should by no means be rated as harshly as it is, and furthermore, naked scenes (eg: Stormship troopers shower scene) shouldn't even be a blip on the censorship radar. There are other elements in that movie that obviously rank up there, but at the end of the day they have the word "nudity" as a reason for censorship.

It's time North America grew the fuck up, let people accept what is real which kills the stupid giggling every time there's a bare breast, ass, penis or vagina.

News flash: We're all naked under all these clothes. Accept it, and move on.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2013, 09:12:15 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

If you see someone singing and dancing on stage, they're dressed provocatively. Oh noes, a boob!

Are you expecting questions like "Dad, is that man trying to rape her?" simply because her boob popped out? Is the sight of a nipple a cause for concern that they're going to say "To hell with it, let's just have sex on stage, RIGHT NOW!"

How is nudity in any way connected to sexual intercourse as a matter of life? Your dog is naked - is it engaged with copulation 99% of the time? This is where nudity, *not sexual conduct*, needs to be parsed out.

If you're watching a gore flick, and there is killing and it's viceral and brutal on-screen, it should be rated at the same level that full on sexual intercourse is - but showing two people engaged in a sexual but non-gratuitous act should by no means be rated as harshly as it is, and furthermore, naked scenes (eg: Stormship troopers shower scene) shouldn't even be a blip on the censorship radar. There are other elements in that movie that obviously rank up there, but at the end of the day they have the word "nudity" as a reason for censorship.

It's time North America grew the fuck up, let people accept what is real which kills the stupid giggling every time there's a bare breast, ass, penis or vagina.

News flash: We're all naked under all these clothes. Accept it, and move on.

This is nonsense, Purge and has no correlation to anything. In fact it's barely coherent at all.

Why would I or any reasonable parent expose such young children to sexual content of any kind? I don't expose them to gore either. Do you understand how young 7 and 5 are? Do you think it's appropriate to sexualize children at that age or expose them to sexual content?

ATB, if you didn't understand my rant, calling it nonsense and barely coherent is probably the wrong thing to do, don't you think? I mean, I don't want to get into political or religious views here, and I'm trying my damnedest to avoid simply pigeonholing your opinion based on your expressed views. You know - I'm thinking about you as a person. Try reciprocating.

The example cited above was the superbowl, and a boob showing, and you state:

Quote

How about this? I'm watching the superbowl with my 7 year old daughter and 5 year old son. Why should I have to fear seeing that garbage on primetime when nearly every other hour of tv, radio, etc is almost solely focused on sexual content in some form. And it's not a 'please think of the children' thing. There should be safe havens. A primetime globally watched football game should be one of them.

First of all: You think a breast is sexual? Interesting. You should head over to a farm sometime, and see all the hentai they have going on with those cows.

You are watching a half-time show where two singers are prancing around provocatively, singing about love / sex, and dressed up as such. You *know* this is going to be there. You KNOW that the superbowl is a spectacle and the advertising dollars paid for a 30sec spot is astronomical, and everyone is expecting shocking and entertaining advertising.

Sex sells - and you're sitting there watching the advertising giants try to out-do each other.

Wait, you choose to watch that with your kids? You preach to me about your 7 and 5yr old (which are likely significantly older - that was some time ago)? You have a problem with a breast on the screen, and yet the entire presentation is targeted to engage YOUR sexual interest? Up until her nipple made an appearance, you had no problem with his hand on her tit. Frankly, your kids wouldn't even pick up on that without the queuing from you, much like the subtle adult humour found in so many kids cartoons.

I submit that your probable over-reaction to them seeing it, and then seeing how their parent(s) got upset did far more damage than what amounted to a nip slip. What did your reaction do to your kids? How was a boob showing any more damaging to the performance beside someone slipping, or seeing the REST of the performance which was, as I stated, far more sexual in nature? Do you think Janet wanted you to see her boob? You labeling the "scandalous" reveal of a wardrobe malfunction as sexual is absurd.

The reaction should have been the same as when a two-year old falls over. You don't go rushing to them with "Ooo, poor baby!" ... instead you chill out about it, explain it for what it was - and deal with what they bring to you rather than feeding into a notion they don't have. It trains them to react a certain way.

I believe that for the years to come, your kids (given what I'm to assume is the same course of reaction to nudity, and sexual content) face the possibility of being riddled with insecurities about their own bodies given that they only see themselves naked, and pretty much airbrushed versions of everything else outside that. On top of that, since it seems we think it's good to suppress things, that they instead will not feel secure in their own skin. In our house, my kid gets to see his parents naked - not because we're prancing around or sharing with him, and nothing that's explicit, but simply put, if he follows us into our bedroom while we get dressed/changed, we don't kick him out. Why should we?

Here's a light-hearted look at the observation:

Nudity != Sex - let's be clear here. You can engage in sexual stimulation with clothes on, so nudity isn't even a requirement for sex. When nude, you aren't having sex. They aren't really connected - they aren't the same thing.

This is where people need to grow up. There is nothing wrong with being naked, and while clothing some parts of the body may be more "hygienic" (hint: wrong) the fact of the matter is that people spend more time worrying about how they look than they should. I spend a good 20 minutes a day naked in front of strangers. About 5 minutes of getting changed to go work out, and the remaining in getting washed after. I watch people who wear their underwear into the shower, or shorts, or hide behind towels, and I wonder what it's like to not be comfortable with yourself. I'm a big guy, BTW - not my prior 365, but down to about 235 (with a significant amount of muscle tissue mind you). I've worked at it, and I have no reason to be embarrassed.

I'm not going to let my son, who is currently eight and has only ever watched SW eps 4,5,6 once (likely the most violent films seen), and the closest violence on TV he watches is Avatar: The Airbender series, (well, there is the rampant criminal activity in Word Girl, and the thug life in Electric Company), grow up being ashamed or insecure of his body. There is a period in his life when his hormones will go whacky, and I want him to be comfortable. I want him to be strong in his own acceptance of what he is, so that he can grow farther than I have.

Frankly, I'm a parent who kind of wishes that GTA:San Andreas had Hot Coffee available in every single game. Not because I wanted to play a sex sim - no, it's because then maybe the idiot parents who think M for Mom's Babysitter would have been uncomfortable enough to not let 11yr old Johnny play it.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 04:38:00 AM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

I watch people who wear their underwear into the shower, or shorts, or hide behind towels, and I wonder what it's like to not be comfortable with yourself. I'm a big guy, BTW - not my prior 365, but down to about 235 (with a significant amount of muscle tissue mind you). I've worked at it, and I have no reason to be embarrassed.

It’s not about shame, it’s about courtesy. You have no reason to be embarrassed but I still don’t want to see your naked body. I actually don’t have a problem with nudity in media but it should be people’s choice to NOT have to see it in the same way that you can choose not to see violent media. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist at all.